A World without Nukes

A World without Nukes

By Jacob Walls

A world without the threat of nuclear war sounds ideal and something that we should all strive for. North Korea of all people have been in conversations with South Korea about possibly giving up their nuclear weapons. North Korea would like to further these type of talks with the U.S. This should be a good thing for the world especially with the tension between President Trump and Kim Jong Un over nuclear weapons. However, I don’t think it is. I do not think that the world is ready to not have nuclear weapons anymore. I truly hope that one day, there are no nukes in the world, but that just isn’t realistic. It isn’t realistic for North Korea to give up their nukes in today’s day and age. North Korea has to be self-interested actors and keep their nukes. This is because 8 other nations have thousands of nuclear war heads ready at any moment to strike. North Korea just fairly recently (2006) started testing nuclear weapons. And even thought the amount of nuclear weapons North Korea has is unclear, it is nothing compared to the United States number of nukes. The practical solution for North Korea would be to retire/dismantle some of their nuclear missiles like other countries have done. But to totally give up nuclear weapons is irrational.

We live in a world of self-interested actors. No country or nation does something for the greater good of society. They do something in order to get some type of return back on it. The United States for example has an abundance of foreign aid to give out to countries but, we still see countries in turmoil across the globe. The Rwanda Genocide is a perfect example of countries like the U.S not stepping in at a time of need. Through the span of about 100 days, roughly 800,000 people were killed due to the cruelty of the Hutu's people. No country came in to help stop this bloodshed. The U.S didn’t even declare this genocide. White House staff members used terms like “acts of genocide” to try and cover up the fact that they haven’t done anything to stop it. The sad truth is that the U.S had no real interest in helping stop this genocide. Rwanda is a small country in central Africa. They have no minerals or “real” value to other countries. The U.S didn’t want to have a repeat of “Black Hawk Down” which occurred in Somalia where U.S troops were killed in the process. Rwanda was too much of a liability for the United States. There was nothing tangible for the U.S to gain by intervening in Rwanda. So, they simply didn’t. This is exactly why North Korea shouldn’t give up their nukes. North Korea will gain nothing by giving up their nuclear power and will be in threat of losing things.

The other 8 nations will still have their nukes the day after North Korea ever decides to give up theirs.   The strong take what they can, and the weak accept what they must. North Korea has to do everything in their power to not end up like the weak. We see how countries like the U.S has treated weak countries like Rwanda. If North Korea agrees to give up their nukes and stop developing their nuclear and ballistic missile programs, then they will be vulnerable. North Korea will be irrational if they give up their fire-power in the hopes for a “utopia of no nukes”. This just isn’t practical in the world. When the United States first tested their nuclear weapon in 1945, the world changed. Pandora’s Box was opened and what followed was decades of nuclear destruction.

Yes, countries have made strides to limit the amount of nuclear weapons they have by disarming and burying them but no nation has completely gave up their nukes or stopped their developmental programs for them. This would be irrational for states’ leaders to leave their country completely powerless when other countries still have weapons of mass destruction. I know the old saying, “someone’s got to start it first” could apply here but, that is easier said than done. No one wants to look like a fool and give up their nukes in the name of unattainable and unrealistic peace.          

The role of U.S in democratic transition of Myanmar

Myanmar is an ASEAN country neighboring the two great powers of Asia, China and India. The parliament of Myanmar is being dominated by two political parties, National League for Democracy (NLD) led by the State Councilor Aung San Suu Kyi and Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) handled by former and current military officials. The best suitable to word to describe the foreign policy of Myanmar either domestic or foreign is “balance”. Being a small country with neither economic and military power, it’s not a choice for Myanmar to be dependable upon other countries but those bilateral relations are usually the ones that define the continuity or change of Myanmar politics.

The foreign policy of Obama administration has a great impact on the democratic transition of Myanmar from its military regime which had continued for nearly a half of century. In late 2000s, the military government of Myanmar finally came to conclusion that “Burmese way to Socialism” was not in decent condition as they have hoped for. Due to nearly three decades of economic sanctions by the western countries (led by U.S), the country has been in great national debt and the agricultural economy of Myanmar has no way to overcome the exploitation of China (e.g. Myitsone Dam conflict). The military government of Myanmar has realized that the only way to reduce its overdependence upon China could only be possible with the involvement of the western powers and thus began the government reforms, “seven steps of road map to democracy”, which led to the first democratic 2010 general election of Myanmar.

The willingness of Myanmar to reengage in the international community has played into favor of the “Pivot to East Asia" regional strategy of Obama. During the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the country, she stated  that Myanmar’s democratization reflects “the unique role the United States can and should play in the world as a champion of dignity and democracy” and It is “America at our best.” The U.S and Myanmar pursued to take steps toward the restoration of full diplomatic relations which significantly involved modifying or lifting sanctions in support of Myanmar’s “triple transition”: moving from dictatorship to democracy, from a planned economy to a market economy, and from civil wars to peace. In 2015 general election, Aung San Suu Kyi led NLD party has won the election, leading the country back on the track.

The newly democratic nation has now faced a great number of problems which force the transition to turn reverse rather than forwards. Even though Aung San Suu Kyi has successfully become the State Councilor, with NLD being the major party, the military still controls the parliament through 2008 constitution. The amendment of the constitution would require more than 75% of the legislature in which the representation of military officials is 25%. Moreover, the civil war is still continuing the northern part of the country and the Bengali issues in Arakhan state greatly affected the trust of democratic government of Myanmar by the international community. However, before the “triple transition” could have finished, pro- American government of Myanmar has come to received negligence by Trump administration.

 It is not possible for Myanmar to abandon its bilateral relation with China but the involvement of U.S helped in its strategic balancing process to withdrawn from overdependence of China which kept the country trapped under military junta for more than a half of century. Currently, without the influence of U.S, Myanmar has no choice but to lean towards China and this has continued to hinder the democratic transition.

The Rise of European Populism and the Italian Election

The Rise of European Populism and the Italian Election

          In recent years, there has been the resurgence of populist sentiments throughout Europe, mirroring historical political movements and inciting international concern. In 2017, the unsuccessful campaigns of far-right candidates such as Marine Le Pen of France and Frauke Petry of Germany provided Europe with fleeting reassurance that the  reprehensible credence of populism was suppressed. However, the election of President Donald Trump, has seemed to motivate and validate the emergence of these nationalistic movements. The most recent reoccurrence of populism in Italy demonstrates the fragmented nature of European politics, instability of global affairs, and the inevitable involvement of the United States. 

          
         In the messy Italian political system, there are multiple parties competing to gain the majority of votes. The 2018 campaign was contested by six political parties: Five Star Movement, Democratic Party, Lega (League), Forza Italia (Forward Italy), Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), and Free and Equal. The unconventional internet-based Five Star Movement gained voters from both ends of the political spectrum vying for an establishment change, as this party previously had no official governmental experience. The Five Star Movement was rivaled by the Lega party that maintains similar stances on immigration, Islam, and the European Union. The most recent polls indicated that neither populist faction received sufficient votes to rule the country alone, however, these two political groups will be able to form a coalition and integrate their extreme right-wing political ideologies.

       
         In the 2018 election, the array of political controversies, imperfect candidates, and political issues is reminiscent of the most recent American presidential election. The populist Lega party’s leader, Matteo Salvini, can easily be equated as the Donald Trump of Italy. Throughout his campaign, Salvini advocated for more secure borders, an “Italians first” policy, and islamophobia. Moreover, the polls indicated that he still received a majority of the votes despite his reputation for racism, misogyny and praise of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In addition to fundamental similarities, there has been transparent support from former Trump political advisor, Steve Bannon, as he traveled to the region to support candidate Matteo Salvini and unofficially represent the values of the current administration. It is reasonable to presume that the similarities between the Trump administration and the objectives of the Italian populist movement could provoke future international conflicts. 

        In Europe, the rise of multiple far-right political groups with anti-establishment, xenophobic, and nationalistic beliefs is representative of a greater global isolationist tendency. The Italian populists derive their anti-establishment sentiments from the supposed “empty promises” of the national government and the lack of economic improvement since the last turn of the century. Moreover, the stagnant level of youth unemployment at 35%(1) has further encouraged younger generations of Italians to seek political change. The economic discontent in conjunction with the increasing amount of migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa (around 620,000 since 2013)(2) has convinced many nationalists that these individuals are not seeking refuge from violent conflict, but rather migrating to take employment away from Italians. The politically charged and openly ethnocentric political discourse provides nationalists with the opportunity to blame refugees for domestic issues that unequivocally receive the support of the Italian people.

       The implications of populist movements demonstrates the disintegration of European political alignments and the collapse of traditional paradigms. The inability of the European Union to placate its own member states undermines its legitimacy and authority. Many political analysts are predicting that the repeated election of anti-European Union leaders will lead to the potential demise of the organization and affiliated international institutions. 

      In the realm of American foreign policy, the existence of far-right populist governments could force the United States to become involved in the controversial issues. More specifically, the current presidential administration may align itself with the contentious objectives of the populist Italian parties causing potential international rifts, diminishing our democratic status in the global community, and force the United States to renounce established international agreements to fit a more populist narrative. In the future, it will be crucial for the United States to be diplomatic in cooperating with populist countries, such as Italy. Moreover, the United States should seek the solidarity and counsel of our international allies in addressing populist matters. 

1. Birnbaum, Michael. “Fragmented Italian Result Reveals Power of Populists.” The Washington Post, 4 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/world/italians-vote-amid-anger-toward-migrants-and-populist-energy/2018/03/04/bdf8b5b6-1cb3-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.b73febba2dfa.

2. Birnbaum, Michael. “Italy's Election Results Highlight Struggle to Govern in Europe as Populist Forces Rise.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italian-vote-highlights-growing-struggle-to-govern-in-europe-as-populist-forces-rise/2018/03/05/73cc6820-1bd2-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.df18472ae6de.

Korea Negotiations

Korea: Talks Between the North and South

            Since Korea was split in half, metaphorically and territorially, after WWII, the North and South have gone down starkly different paths; the South embraced democracy, whereas the North had its own familial line of what would soon become a dictatorship, one that raises red flags constantly with regard to human rights violations, yet still pretends that its doing okay on its own. Yet, whether its out of genuine beliefs, or they realize that they would be on the losing end of a war with the South and its allies, North Korea has stated it’s open to negotiations, something that it hasn’t done for a while. Is this a genuine wish for peace, or does the North hold more sinister desires?

            One reason why talks in the past haven’t worked is because North Korea never follows through with their end of the bargain. According to an article on Vox, North Korea has failed to uphold any agreements in relation to its nuclear arms program since 1985. Also, the last time a South Korean president has stepped foot in North Korea was in 2007. Also, this is the first peace talk with Jong-Un; the last one was with his father, Jong-Il.

            I feel we should still attempt these peace talks. Although its clear to the developed world that any failure of these peace talks will, most likely, be because of North Korea, the fact that we do them is still proof that we want a result that doesn’t equate to a third World War or exchange of nuclear payload. Also, whereas the people who held the title of President in past negotiations were more cautious of their own decisions, our current President is more than willing to press “the big button that’s bigger than North Korea’s” if it comes down to it, and the North most likely knows that Trump is the first President who would actually be willing to back up that threat. Participation in negotiation talks would also put pressure on North Korea, as such negotiations would likely expose more of the true North Korea to the world. Negotiations could also allow the possibility of letting North Koreans able to choose to leave North Korea without consequence.

            https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/6/17084818/north-korea-willing-to-talk-give-up-nukes-denuclearization

Trump's Smoking Gun

President Trump, speaking with a group of governors, said that "we have to have action" in the aftermath of the shooting in Florida and pressed for the governors not to be "afraid" of challenging the National Rifle Association. He assured he would find a way to rid the use of bump fire stocks and called out for the advancement and improvement of mental health programs. We can see he wants to do something on guns, but he doesn’t know what. In the meeting he, somehow, managed to simultaneously praise and express his desire to "fight" the gun lobby and stated he pushed the NRA's leaders during a lunch to back reforms to U.S. gun laws.
 "Don't worry about the NRA, they're on our side," Trump said. "Half of you are so afraid of the NRA. There's nothing to be afraid of. ... And you know what, if they're not with you, we have to fight them every once in a while, that's OK. Sometimes we're going to have to be very tough and we're going to have to fight 'em." Such a well-spoken gentleman, isn’t he? Trump also said he met with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the head of the NRA's lobbying efforts, the two figures who have most prominently pushed the organization's opposition to tightening US gun laws over the years. However, he has yet to lay out a decisive framework for his proposals, but over the weeks he had indicated his support for actions of which the NRA remains opposed. Actions such as raising the age for purchasing semiautomatic rifles and banning bump stocks. "Bump stocks, we're writing that out. I'm writing that out myself," Trump said. "I don't care if Congress does it or not." Trump has also called for improvements in the background check system. Surprisingly, a small portion of the NRA supports this although it remains uncertain if he is calling for more significant changes the NRA opposes. "We have to have action. We don't have any action. It happens, a week goes by, let's keep talking. Another week goes by, we keep talking. Two months go by, all of a sudden everybody is off to the next subject. And when it happens again, everybody is angry and let's start talking again. We've got to stop," he said. We can see a gap appearing between him and his $30 million in backing in his 2016 presidential bid from the NRA. Trump called the NRA officials "great patriots" and assured that "there's no bigger fan of the 2nd Amendment than me and there's no bigger fan of the NRA." Trump also focused in on mental health issues, calling for improvements in "early warning response systems" and restating his need for increasing the level of ability of law enforcement to involuntarily commit individuals to "mental institutions," just like "in the old days." "You know, in the old days we had mental institutions, had a lot of them, and you could nab somebody like this because, you know, they did. They knew he was -- something was off," Trump said. "We're going to have to start talking about mental institutions, because a lot of the folks in this room closed their mental institutions also."

Despite facing criticism from many, Trump continued to promote his proposal to arm trained teachers in classrooms who could defend students, stating gun-free zones to be "an invitation for these very sick people" to carry out mass shootings. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee confronted Trump over the proposal during the White House session on Monday, telling Trump that teachers and law enforcement are exceedingly opposed to the idea. "I have listened to the biology teachers, and they don't want to do that," Inslee said. "I have listened to the first-grade teachers who don't want to be pistol-packing first-grade teachers. I have listened to law enforcement, who have said they don't want to have to train teachers as law enforcement agencies, which takes about six months."

Twitter as Trump’s Foreign Policy Strategy

Technology could be considered as good, bad or a little of both. Everyday the power of technology amazes us giving everyone power to voice opinions at the comfort of their desks. We have often made comments about the role of social media in making the globe more of a village. Countries have been able to carry out foreign policy more effectively. Historically, presidents of the United States have had a foreign policy strategy that shapes their foreign policy decision.  Question is, does the United States’ current president have a foreign policy strategy? And if so, is his strategy twitter? And how effective is twitter as a foreign policy strategy?

Donald Trump has send out different tweets targeting different countries. The BBC dedicated an article to look up countries that President Donald Trump has tweeted about. This list includes, Canada, Argentina, Afghanistan, Australia, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, North Korea, Saudi Arabia among others. These tweets have stated the Executive branch’s opinion on several foreign policies or stated the office’s stance on foreign issues. The tweets have sparked debates, angered countries, and in some instances reaffirmed relations between countries.

In 2017, Trump openly twitted “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!”. This is a tweet sparked a reaction from Australians and the Australian Prime Minister responded claiming that this view of America was being hostile to an ally who has often fought side by side with American troops. Following this, Trump has tweeted attacking Sweden and its immigration and integration policies and Swedish official asked the United States officials to work on being informed of Swedish immigration and integration processes. Donald Trump has tweeted at North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, he has tweeted and retweeted contents from Islamophobic groups in the United Kingdom.

To answer the question asked, is this Donald Trump’s foreign policy strategy? Simple answer, yes. The beauty of twitter is that the president has all the control, at least in part, he gets to shape foreign policy without having those around him rewriting his ideas. The President has himself has tweeted stating that, “I use Social Media not because I like to, but because it is the only way to fight a VERY dishonest and unfair “press”, now often referred to as Fake News Media…”. To the President, twitter is an important tool for his foreign policy. Congress and the media tend to take longer to relay a president’s position to the public, the control and effectiveness that comes with twitter is valuable to President Donald Trump.

Presidents have often relied on the public to influence congressional support for their foreign policies. Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan among others chose to go public to influence the reactions of other policy actors. Trump’s decision to use twitter may be considered as an act of going public to ensure that foreign policy actors recognize the continuous presence of the United States in foreign policy. Enemies and allies keep constant checks on the president’s twitter to get an idea of where the United States’ foreign policy stands.

In the last few days, the president has praised China for having plans that align with the United States and has made the diplomatic talks with North Korea. He has also expressed his concerns for Mexico and Canada. Trade wars are being discusses on  twitter feeds and agendas are being formulated on these twitter feeds. Donald Trump’s twitter is a governing tool, it is a governing strategy that he uses to set his foreign policy agenda.

The effectiveness of twitter as a foreign policy strategy cannot be immediately be evaluated. Twitter wars have been initiated by the Presidents reaction to tweets or by his original tweets. Countries get an idea of what is coming their way from the President of the United States’ official account. However, it is important to note that the president has also sent out diplomatic tweets that have been helpful in strengthening ties with allies.  

The issue with having twitter as a foreign policy strategy is changing of strategy or of a policy could be directly traced back to the presidential account. The effectiveness of twitter as a foreign policy strategy is subject to the success of the policies passed. As country, the United States should probably consider whether they are comfortable with having their foreign policy to be largely managed on twitter.

The Results of Italian Election and the Future of the European Union

If you’re a typical ethnocentric-American, you probably didn’t know that Italy just had their federal election last Sunday. If you are an educated elitist who has been keeping up with European politics, then you would know that the results of the election demonstrate the nationalistic wave that has been passing through the European democracies. Unfortunately this election demonstrates how this trend is here to stay and will continue to march on throughout the continent. Which means that the European Union is still at significant risk of dissolving and causing major disruption in political stability in the region.

            In case you’ve been living underneath a rock the last few years, there has been a significant rise in popularity of nationalistic right-leaning parties and political leaders. These political entities thrive off the discontent that many Europeans feel about the pitfalls of the European Union, such as how it was more trouble than it was actually worth. Any Europeans advocate for their countries to leave the international organization for the best interest of their economy. Especially when certain countries in the Union are “piggy-backing” off of others, such as Greece. The situation in Greece being that their economy has been significantly weak and stagnant since the global economic recession in 2007-2008. The Grecian economy hasn’t recovered from the financial crisis and the citizens of the other European countries feel burdened to bear their failing economy. This unhappiness with the European Union has led many individuals to support center-right and far-right political parties who advocate for their country to back out of the E.U.

            Another key issue that these nationalistic-based parties capitalize on is immigration, specifically the Syrian refugees desperately trying to seek asylum in European countries. Many Europeans feel felt fear of the unknown with these people coming into their country, they were afraid that the “integrity” of their cultural identity was threatened with the influx of these immigrants who came from a distinctively different cultural background. The nationalistic parties fed off of this “fear of the other” and racism that was percolating within European countries. These political leaders campaigned on being openly racist by rebranding it as “saying it like it is.” Which was obviously positively received by a public that felt like their political leaders were disconnected from the average working person. Many Europeans believe that the ones who benefit the most from the European Union are the educated and wealthy elites, and that the nationalistic parties were the ones who were “looking out for” the average Joe.  

            Experts of international politics had reason to believe that the nationalistic trend was beginning to wane off. With the election of Emmanuel Macron as President of France, along with the reelection of Angela Merkle as Chancellor of Germany, academics thought that these were signs that European politics was returning to “business as usual,” by electing pro-European Union leaders. They hoped that the rise in popularity of far right politicians with platforms emphasizing nation-first and isolationist policies would simmer away. Unfortunately this was not the case. In the case of the Italian election, the anti-establishment Five-Star Movement and the center-right party Forza Italia demonstrate the discontent that Italian citizens feel towards the liberal elite that had dominated Italian and overall European politics in the previous decades. Although an immediate separation from the European Union seems unlikely, due to how the Five-Star Movement refuses to form coalitions with the other parties, thus causing a “hung” parliament that will be incredibly ineffectual at getting any political agenda done.

            In response to this continuing nationalistic, isolationist trend, what is a supporter of international institutions and interconnectedness to do? For starters, they can flock to social media outlets and openly advocate and encourage maintaining the European Union. If Putin can manipulate democratic elections with social media, then supporters of globalization the can use social media can save the European Union. Since the European Union has been around for about sixty years, it is easy to take it for granted. That it is easy to overlook the benefits the European Union has brought on to not only its members, but to the international community as a whole. During this time of intense political polarization and discord, global institutions are needed more than ever to try to keep the world together.